Posted by dahsdebater on 6/11/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):Based on the understanding I have of the engine, a missed shot being a block is probably determined AFTER the fact that the shot was missed is determined. The block is probably similar to an assist - window dressing, but it alludes to the contribution to team defense of the block skill in the same way that assists allude to an extent to the contribution to team shooting % from a passing skill.

i dont think its the worst off/def combo, i think zone is the worst defense if you play it like man, which is how most people new to zone play it. but i think its a solid defense in its own right. its harder to understand contributions from players because of the averaging going on but you get to play your key players significantly longer, and if you leverage that substantial advantage, zone can be a very effective set. the general strategy id use with triangle/zone would be to focus on getting a few star offensive players i could really leverage. triangle allows you to concentrate a good amount of your scoring in the hands of a few stars, and zone allows you to play your star players longer. so basically, you can milk your starts hard AND long, playing triangle and zone. thats how i'd approach it, and try to fill out with strong defense, rebounding, and passing.

Posted by coach_billyg on 6/12/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):i dont think its the worst off/def combo, i think zone is the worst defense if you play it like man, which is how most people new to zone play it. but i think its a solid defense in its own right. its harder to understand contributions from players because of the averaging going on but you get to play your key players significantly longer, and if you leverage that substantial advantage, zone can be a very effective set. the general strategy id use with triangle/zone would be to focus on getting a few star offensive players i could really leverage. triangle allows you to concentrate a good amount of your scoring in the hands of a few stars, and zone allows you to play your star players longer. so basically, you can milk your starts hard AND long, playing triangle and zone. thats how i'd approach it, and try to fill out with strong defense, rebounding, and passing.

I saw this advice from cbg ages ago and used it as my strategy in D1. It's worked out very well so far. The one other thing I'd like to add is zone also gives you the ability to recruit project players (low starting ratings but high potential) and stash them for a few years before they're effective, which further fits with the tri/zone strategy because you get the projects cheap and spend a huge amount of money on the stars.

Posted by reddyred on 6/11/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):i don't think block ratings are averaged but getting many blocks depends on where the offense is attacking. This compounded with individual ATH, SB and IQ ratings determines how high the probability of a block being generated. This is my opinion based on what I've noticed running zone. I could be wrong.

This is my exchange with CS:

6/11/2013 12:59 PM

Trentonjoe

In a zone defense, are block ratings averaged like defense in the interior defensive equation.

I was under the assumption that all defensive components were averaged (ATH, DEF, BLK, IQ). Is this not the case?

6/11/2013 3:58 PM

Customer Support

Chris,

Can you give some more detail about what context you're talking about? You mean the impact of shot blocking on opponent shooting? Or do you mean when a player actually blocks a shot?

6/11/2013 6:35 PM

Trentonjoe

Both. But more the impact on opponents fg%

6/12/2013 8:20 AM

Customer Support

Shot blocking is one part of a player's defensive ability, which is then averaged when playing a zone.

This makes sense, but the best shot blocker still gets the most blocks. As far as assists, sometimes I have teams where the best passer isn't the leading assist guy (possibly because he's my best scorer) so I can see the random assignment there but SB seems to be about the SB rating. I know it's a defensive skill but it seems to stand alone. If I have a guy with 90 SB playing with a guy that has 60 SB at the 4 and 5 spot with a 3 that has 40 SB... My 90 SB player gets credit for the most blocks and will lead my team in that stat by the end of the season. Assists just seem far more random than either RB or SB... so I can see assists as window dressing but not blocks.

I also have to disagree with zone being the worst defense. I just don't see it that way. Every D has it's strengths and weaknesses - the key is in setting the team up in a manner in which you make it very difficult for your opponent to exploit those weaknesses. The most glaring weakness in a zone is giving up offensive boards- but at the same time I think zone can hold offenses to extremely low FG%s (which creates more off boards anyway) - it also causes the least amount of TO's but your best defenders can play 30 + minutes depending on stamina without negative impact. I believe the sets are more like a game of rock-paper-scissors... it's not as clearly defined in terms of wining and losing of course but in theory. Why create a defense that is weaker by design than all other options? It just doesn't seem to benefit the game as a whole if this is the case.

Posted by reddyred on 6/13/2013 10:18:00 AM (view original):I also have to disagree with zone being the worst defense. I just don't see it that way. Every D has it's strengths and weaknesses - the key is in setting the team up in a manner in which you make it very difficult for your opponent to exploit those weaknesses. The most glaring weakness in a zone is giving up offensive boards- but at the same time I think zone can hold offenses to extremely low FG%s (which creates more off boards anyway) - it also causes the least amount of TO's but your best defenders can play 30 + minutes depending on stamina without negative impact. I believe the sets are more like a game of rock-paper-scissors... it's not as clearly defined in terms of wining and losing of course but in theory. Why create a defense that is weaker by design than all other options? It just doesn't seem to benefit the game as a whole if this is the case.

well, there was a point in time when zone was shittier than it is now, and press stronger, so zone was almost unusable. but i think its balanced today. to me, the reason so few people use it is just because it was so ******, nobody played it, nobody got good at it (well, im sure a few people did, but thats not what im saying). so now its around as a quality set, but people are comfortable with other stuff. i had a half *** USC team playing fb/zone just upset a killer 1 seed in my last season playing d1, id been there 4 seasons, switched off/def, and never gave them hardly any attention - this season was the worst, when i realized i hadnt set their distro yet as i was planning for the first game of the NT. but despite all that, they played really well, made the elite 8. and i really dont know the details of zone at all. but i did have some star players and i did push them hard (for those last 4 games) and playing zone did let me get more out of them.

honestly, with people so ****** about EEs in high d1 and the difficulty of finding less-stellar players, meaning more walkons etc, im surprised zone gets such a bad rap. ive got little zone experience but both of the last two times i played it, for like 10 seasons total, i saw nothing that suggested to me that it was a subpar defense (both were like b range d1 teams, one mid major, one BCS). i think a lot of coaches who struggle doing something tough like, building a BCS team from the bottom, contribute to making that so tough - by trying to do it playing the same strategy as the top teams - run a motion/man or something, need all those ath/def players, a full deep team, etc... its just so hard to beat a quality coach with major advantages, at their own game. mix it up a bit! zone should be way more prevalent, people just need to be willing to put the time in to learn it. i turned SC around with FB/man but it was tough, i was surprised how tough, i mean we ended up a top program in tark competing for titles every year, but i used to be able to turn a BCS bottom feeder into a national champ contender in about 3 seasons. its a LOT harder now. to me, half those teams should be running zone. really, just about all of them should be zone or press - go deep with less talent on top or shallow with more talent on top, with the set that takes advantage of it. play a set that offers you the opportunity to deviate from the strategy of the schools you cant compete with, and play into the strengths of that set! it really blows me away how many people sit there and struggle so hard, so long, running m2m in that tough situation, trying to beat often more accomplished, more experienced coaches who have huge in-game advantages on them, at their own game! mix it up a bit, it really would go a long way to create more balance in d1 play.

Posted by reddyred on 6/13/2013 10:18:00 AM (view original):I also have to disagree with zone being the worst defense. I just don't see it that way. Every D has it's strengths and weaknesses - the key is in setting the team up in a manner in which you make it very difficult for your opponent to exploit those weaknesses. The most glaring weakness in a zone is giving up offensive boards- but at the same time I think zone can hold offenses to extremely low FG%s (which creates more off boards anyway) - it also causes the least amount of TO's but your best defenders can play 30 + minutes depending on stamina without negative impact. I believe the sets are more like a game of rock-paper-scissors... it's not as clearly defined in terms of wining and losing of course but in theory. Why create a defense that is weaker by design than all other options? It just doesn't seem to benefit the game as a whole if this is the case.

well, there was a point in time when zone was shittier than it is now, and press stronger, so zone was almost unusable. but i think its balanced today. to me, the reason so few people use it is just because it was so ******, nobody played it, nobody got good at it (well, im sure a few people did, but thats not what im saying). so now its around as a quality set, but people are comfortable with other stuff. i had a half *** USC team playing fb/zone just upset a killer 1 seed in my last season playing d1, id been there 4 seasons, switched off/def, and never gave them hardly any attention - this season was the worst, when i realized i hadnt set their distro yet as i was planning for the first game of the NT. but despite all that, they played really well, made the elite 8. and i really dont know the details of zone at all. but i did have some star players and i did push them hard (for those last 4 games) and playing zone did let me get more out of them.

honestly, with people so ****** about EEs in high d1 and the difficulty of finding less-stellar players, meaning more walkons etc, im surprised zone gets such a bad rap. ive got little zone experience but both of the last two times i played it, for like 10 seasons total, i saw nothing that suggested to me that it was a subpar defense (both were like b range d1 teams, one mid major, one BCS). i think a lot of coaches who struggle doing something tough like, building a BCS team from the bottom, contribute to making that so tough - by trying to do it playing the same strategy as the top teams - run a motion/man or something, need all those ath/def players, a full deep team, etc... its just so hard to beat a quality coach with major advantages, at their own game. mix it up a bit! zone should be way more prevalent, people just need to be willing to put the time in to learn it. i turned SC around with FB/man but it was tough, i was surprised how tough, i mean we ended up a top program in tark competing for titles every year, but i used to be able to turn a BCS bottom feeder into a national champ contender in about 3 seasons. its a LOT harder now. to me, half those teams should be running zone. really, just about all of them should be zone or press - go deep with less talent on top or shallow with more talent on top, with the set that takes advantage of it. play a set that offers you the opportunity to deviate from the strategy of the schools you cant compete with, and play into the strengths of that set! it really blows me away how many people sit there and struggle so hard, so long, running m2m in that tough situation, trying to beat often more accomplished, more experienced coaches who have huge in-game advantages on them, at their own game! mix it up a bit, it really would go a long way to create more balance in d1 play.

Damn! I wish I had read this about 2 seasons ago when I was starting out with Tennessee.

I understand the concept, and how to play 2-3 compared to 3-2. But what the hell is this avg. thing. Do they take the avg. of the individual def skills(Ath, Def, SB) and then avg. the players averages toghether? Ex: PF ATH(50) DEF(40) SB(60)= 50, C ATH(60), DEF(70), SB(80)= 70 then take 50+70=120/2 and your avg. in a 3-2 for your 4&5 is 60.

Posted by terps21234 on 6/13/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):I understand the concept, and how to play 2-3 compared to 3-2. But what the hell is this avg. thing. Do they take the avg. of the individual def skills(Ath, Def, SB) and then avg. the players averages toghether? Ex: PF ATH(50) DEF(40) SB(60)= 50, C ATH(60), DEF(70), SB(80)= 70 then take 50+70=120/2 and your avg. in a 3-2 for your 4&5 is 60.

they dont average like that. the weights of ratings are not equal in the "defensive ability". the formula for the defensive ability in any defense is unknown, but you can safely assume defense is the most important. for simplicity, suppose the defensive ability formula for players in the front court in the 3-2 zone is def * 2 + sb + ath. then your first guy is 40*2 + 50 + 60 = 190. the second guy is 70*2 + 80 + 60 = 280. then when a player goes to score in the front court, or something to that effect, he is always facing an average defensive ability of 235 (the avg of 280 and 190). if it makes it easier to see it on a 1-100 scale, assume the formula is def * 2 + sb + ath all over 4. then the first guy is 190/4 = 48 and the second guy is 280/4 = 70. the average is 59. so instead of an opposing center sometimes facing a 48 defender and sometimes facing a 70 defender, he always faces a 59 defender. thats the general idea anyway.

OK, let's look at the numbers. Going to give, for a few years of Rupp, some figures on the various offense/defense combos. Number using it; cumulative winning percentages, and nr of users with 20 wins and 20 losses. Humans, only; some D1, some D2, some D3. No combos; didn't include schools whose coach had apparently abandoned them.

Allright, All the talk about zone and the averages in def ratings. How do I lose to Cowan whose def. ratings are horrible. ( No offense to Cowan coach) He plays a 3-2 and per def. ratings are low. I took advantage and gave my per players the most distro. If all the talk is true than how did I lose.http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=9705384

TY Trenton. So I should of taken most outside shots. I guess the one big problem is that I don't have many 3 pt shooters, but I still thought giving my per. guys more distro than they would take outside of the lane jumpers, just not 3pt.